British_Pharaoh wrote:I understand people are shaken and suspicious of everything now, but we don't even know who is responsible yet. I don't know what is more abhorrent: other passengers wanting the men removed from the flight, assuming they were a danger, or the fact the airline ACTUALLY removed them

So you "understand" people are shaken and suspicious (and more maybe more to the point, "scared shitless"?) but you don't know why those same people would be paranoid and want someone removed from a flight... When the last attack on an American city involving stunning explosions in many locations, consisted of people speaking like those men did flying planes that flew out of Boston?

I don't think you "understand" at all. I think you prefaced your actual opinion with a softener in an attempt to come off as empathetic.

Don't take this personally, because I like having you around this place, but you're a fucking idiot if you don't understand the dynamics in play there.

How was my softener? Was my actual message lost in there? I hope not.

So what happened to these two individuals is right on the basis that the prejudices of a few Americans should take precedence over law, human rights and the dignity of the two Arabic-speaking people?

"There is but one thing of real value: to cultivate truth and justice and to live without anger in the midst of lying and unjust men"

British_Pharaoh wrote: So what happened to these two individuals is right on the basis that the prejudices of a few Americans should take precedence over law, human rights and the dignity of the two Arabic-speaking people?

Nope.

But 'right' has got nothing to do with it.

That's the problem with theoretical morality: that shit goes right out the fucking window when people are lying in puddles of blood and surrounded by dead kids and severed limbs after a major US city is attacked, and when no one will EVER get on a plane again without at least some passing conscious or unconscious thought about 9/11.

Sorry if those irrational individuals on the plane and at the airline offended your moral convictions and sense of fairness.

I think i'm with BP on this one. You don't pull paying customers off a plane because they're speaking another language. You tell the complainers "no", and if they have a problem with that flight, they can go back in and pick another that's less "Muslimy".

British_Pharaoh wrote: So what happened to these two individuals is right on the basis that the prejudices of a few Americans should take precedence over law, human rights and the dignity of the two Arabic-speaking people?

Nope.

But 'right' has got nothing to do with it.

That's the problem with theoretical morality: that shit goes right out the fucking window when people are lying in puddles of blood and surrounded by dead kids and severed limbs after a major US city is attacked, and when no one will EVER get on a plane again without at least some passing conscious or unconscious thought about 9/11.

Sorry if those irrational individuals on the plane and at the airline offended your moral convictions and sense of fairness.

BP, Peek didn't mention anything about right/wrong. And I am also astounded that you don't seem to actually grasp the fear that would cause a situation like that to happen. That doesn't mean it's right. From a distance it's pretty clear that it isn't "right". And I like to think that faced with the same set of circumstances I would behave differently than they did. But I definitely "get it."

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I think i'm with BP on this one. You don't pull paying customers off a plane because they're speaking another language. You tell the complainers "no", and if they have a problem with that flight, they can go back in and pick another that's less "Muslimy".

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I think i'm with BP on this one. You don't pull paying customers off a plane because they're speaking another language. You tell the complainers "no", and if they have a problem with that flight, they can go back in and pick another that's less "Muslimy".

Again, I'm not saying it was 'right'.

I'm saying that I understand the reason for it happening. Even if it's based on irrational emotion. It's easier (and probably safer) to remove the two people as opposed to dealing with the other 170 who are probably an inch away from full-blown panic mode.

People at that point are not thinking rationally and are not stepping back from the emotion of the situation to analyze things with clarity of thought. To think they are is almost as foolish as assuming any Arabic speaking individual on a plane is a threat.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I think i'm with BP on this one. You don't pull paying customers off a plane because they're speaking another language. You tell the complainers "no", and if they have a problem with that flight, they can go back in and pick another that's less "Muslimy".

Again, I'm not saying it was 'right'.

I'm saying that I understand the reason for it happening. Even if it's based on irrational emotion. It's easier (and probably safer) to remove the two people as opposed to dealing with the other 170 who are probably an inch away from full-blown panic mode.

People at that point are not thinking rationally and are not stepping back from the emotion of the situation to analyze things with clarity of thought. To think they are is almost as foolish as assuming any Arabic speaking individual on a plane is a threat.

If they're thinking that irrationally, they shouldn't be on a plane. Pull those people off.

Well, I guess there are two different things. I understand the fear and irrationality of the passengers that led to the situation. What I understand less is the airline giving in to the pressure and removing the two Arab passengers. They absolutely shouldn't have done that and, frankly, should have to answer for it.

motherscratcher wrote:Well, I guess there are two different things. I understand the fear and irrationality of the passengers that led to the situation. What I understand less is the airline giving in to the pressure and removing the two Arab passengers. They absolutely shouldn't have done that and, frankly, should have to answer for it.

Allow me: " It was the assessment of our professionally trained staff that in order to diffuse a potentially unsafe situation that the two men be provided alternative travel options. This was done with their safety in mind and at the expense of the airline. In no way does the airline believe these two passengers were in any way a threat, but rather their safety and comfort was at the forefront of our decision. We regret any inconvenience this may have caused."

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Oh ok, they had to protect these two men from the potentially dangerous other passengers.

Perfect logic.

Again, I don't know how much simpler it can be. People were emotional. Those on the plane and those dealing with them. That's the statement the airline will make. It's no more true than right. But none if you are this naive or senseless. You know the score. You don't like the game. No one does.

It'd be so much easier if everyone just got along and respected the cultures and the people from every part of the world. Why don't we just try that?

There's not much to say about Monday's Boston Marathon attack because there is virtually no known evidence regarding who did it or why. There are, however, several points to be made about some of the widespread reactions to this incident. Much of that reaction is all-too-familiar and quite revealing in important ways:

(1) The widespread compassion for yesterday's victims and the intense anger over the attacks was obviously authentic and thus good to witness. But it was really hard not to find oneself wishing that just a fraction of that compassion and anger be devoted to attacks that the US perpetrates rather than suffers. These are exactly the kinds of horrific, civilian-slaughtering attacks that the US has been bringing to countries in the Muslim world over and over and over again for the last decade, with very little attention paid.

Juan Cole this morning makes a similar point about violence elsewhere. Indeed, just yesterday in Iraq, at least 42 people were killed and more than 250 injured by a series of car bombs, the enduring result of the US invasion and destruction of that country. Somehow the deep compassion and anger felt in the US when it is attacked never translates to understanding the effects of our own aggression against others.

One particularly illustrative example I happened to see yesterday was a re-tweet from Washington Examiner columnist David Freddoso, proclaiming:

Idea of secondary bombs designed to kill the first responders is just sick. How does anyone become that evil?"

I don't disagree with that sentiment. But I'd bet a good amount of money that the person saying it - and the vast majority of other Americans - have no clue that targeting rescuers with "double-tap" attacks is precisely what the US now does with its drone program and other forms of militarism. If most Americans knew their government and military were doing this, would they react the same way as they did to yesterday's Boston attack: "Idea of secondary bombs designed to kill the first responders is just sick. How does anyone become that evil?" That's highly doubtful, and that's the point.

There's nothing wrong per se with paying more attention to tragedy and violence that happens relatively nearby and in familiar places. Whether wrong or not, it's probably human nature, or at least human instinct, to do that, and that happens all over the world. I'm not criticizing that. But one wishes that the empathy for victims and outrage over the ending of innocent human life that instantly arises when the US is targeted by this sort of violence would at least translate into similar concern when the US is perpetrating it, as it so often does (far, far more often than it is targeted by such violence).

Regardless of your views of justification and intent: whatever rage you're feeling toward the perpetrator of this Boston attack, that's the rage in sustained form that people across the world feel toward the US for killing innocent people in their countries. Whatever sadness you feel for yesterday's victims, the same level of sadness is warranted for the innocent people whose lives are ended by American bombs. However profound a loss you recognize the parents and family members of these victims to have suffered, that's the same loss experienced by victims of US violence. It's natural that it won't be felt as intensely when the victims are far away and mostly invisible, but applying these reactions to those acts of US aggression would go a long way toward better understanding what they are and the outcomes they generate.

(2) The rush, one might say the eagerness, to conclude that the attackers were Muslim was palpable and unseemly, even without any real evidence. The New York Post quickly claimed that the prime suspect was a Saudi national (while also inaccurately reporting that 12 people had been confirmed dead). The Post's insinuation of responsibility was also suggested on CNN by Former Bush Homeland Security Adviser Fran Townsend ("We know that there is one Saudi national who was wounded in the leg who is being spoken to"). Former Democratic Rep. Jane Harman went on CNN to grossly speculate that Muslim groups were behind the attack. Anti-Muslim bigots like Pam Geller predictably announced that this was "Jihad in America". Expressions of hatred for Muslims, and a desire to do violence, were then spewing forth all over Twitter (some particularly unscrupulous partisan Democrat types were identically suggesting with zero evidence that the attackers were right-wing extremists).

Obviously, it's possible that the perpetrator(s) will turn out to be Muslim, just like it's possible they will turn out to be extremist right-wing activists, or left-wing agitators, or Muslim-fearing Anders-Breivik types, or lone individuals driven by apolitical mental illness. But the rush to proclaim the guilty party to be Muslim is seen in particular over and over with such events. Recall that on the day of the 2011 Oslo massacre by a right-wing, Muslim-hating extremist, the New York Times spent virtually the entire day strongly suggesting in its headlines that an Islamic extremist group was responsible, a claim other major news outlets (including the BBC and Washington Post) then repeated as fact. The same thing happened with the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, when most major US media outlets strongly suggested that the perpetrators were Muslims. As FAIR documented back then:

"In the wake of the explosion that destroyed the Murrah Federal Office Building, the media rushed — almost en masse — to the assumption that the bombing was the work of Muslim extremists. 'The betting here is on Middle East terrorists,' declared CBS News' Jim Stewart just hours after the blast (4/19/95). 'The fact that it was such a powerful bomb in Oklahoma City immediately drew investigators to consider deadly parallels that all have roots in the Middle East,' ABC's John McWethy proclaimed the same day.

"'It has every single earmark of the Islamic car-bombers of the Middle East,' wrote syndicated columnist Georgie Anne Geyer (Chicago Tribune, 4/21/95). 'Whatever we are doing to destroy Mideast terrorism, the chief terrorist threat against Americans, has not been working,' declared the New York Times' A.M. Rosenthal (4/21/95). The Geyer and Rosenthal columns were filed after the FBI released sketches of two suspects who looked more like Midwestern frat boys than mujahideen."

This lesson is never learned because, it seems, many people don't want to learn it. Even when it turns out not to have been Muslims who perpetrated the attack but rather right-wing, white Christians, the damage from this relentless and reflexive blame-pinning endures.

(3) One continually encountered yesterday expressions of dread and fear from Arabs and Muslims around the world that the attacker would be either or both. That's because they know that all members of their religious or ethnic group will be blamed, or worse, if that turns out to be the case. That's true even though leading Muslim-American groups such as CAIR harshly condemned the attack (as they always do) and urged support for the victims, including blood donations. One tweeter, referencing the earthquake that hit Iran this morning, satirized this collective mindset by writing: "Please don't be a Muslim plate tectonic activity."

As understandable as it is, that's just sad to witness. No other group reacts with that level of fear to these kinds of incidents, because no other group has similar cause to fear that they will all be hated or targeted for the acts of isolated, unrepresentative individuals. A similar dynamic has long prevailed in the domestic crime context: when the perpetrators of notorious crimes turned out to be African-American, the entire community usually paid a collective price. But the unique and well-grounded dread that hundreds of millions of law-abiding, peaceful Muslims and Arabs around the world have about the prospect that this attack in Boston was perpetrated by a Muslim highlights the climate of fear that has been created for and imposed on them over the last decade.

(4) The reaction to the Boston attack underscored, yet again, the utter meaninglessness of the word "terrorism". News outlets were seemingly scandalized that President Obama, in his initial remarks, did not use the words "terrorist attack" to describe the bombing. In response, the White House ran to the media to assure them that they considered it "terrorism". Fox News' Ed Henry quoted a "senior administration official" as saying this: "When multiple (explosive) devices go off that's an act of terrorism."

Is that what "terrorism" is? "When multiple (explosive) devices go off"? If so, that encompasses a great many things, including what the US does in the world on a very regular basis. Of course, the quest to know whether this was "terrorism" is really code for: "was this done by Muslims"? That's because, in US political discourse, "terrorism" has no real meaning other than: violence perpetrated by Muslims against the west. The reason there was such confusion and uncertainty about whether this was "terrorism" is because there is no clear and consistently applied definition of the term. At this point, it's little more than a term of emotionally manipulative propaganda. That's been proven over and over, and it was again yesterday.

(5) The history of these types of attacks over the last decade has been clear and consistent: they are exploited to obtain new government powers, increase state surveillance, and take away individual liberties. On NBC with Brian Williams last night, Tom Brokaw decreed that this will happen again and instructed us that we must meekly submit it to it:

"Everyone has to understand tonight that, beginning tomorrow morning early, there are going to be much tougher security considerations all across the country, and however exhausted we may be by that, we're going to have to learn to live with them, and get along and go forward, and not let them bring us to our knees. You'll remember last summer, how unhappy we were with the security at the Democratic and Republic conventions. Now I don't think we can raise those complaints after what happened in Boston."

Last night on Chris Hayes' MSNBC show, an FBI agent discussed the fact that the US government has the right to arrest terrorism suspects and not provide them with Miranda warnings before questioning them. After seeing numerous people express surprise at this claim on Twitter, I pointed out that this happened when the Obama administration exploited the attempted underwear bombing over Detroit to radically reduce Miranda rights over what they had been for decades. That's what the US government (aided by the sham "terrorism expert" industry) does in every single one of these cases: exploits the resulting fear to increase its own power and decrease everyone else's rights, including privacy.

At the Atlantic, security expert Bruce Schneier has a short but compelling article on how urgent it is that we not react to this Boston attack irrationally or with exaggerated fear, and that we particularly remain vigilant against government attempts to exploit fear to impose all new rights-reducing measures. He notes in particular how the more unusual an event is (such as this sort of attack on US soil), the more our brains naturally exaggerate its significance and frequency (John Cole makes a similar point).

In sum, even if the perpetrators of Monday's attack in Boston turn out to be politically motivated and subscribers to an anti-US ideology, it will still be a very rare event, one that poses far less danger to Americans than literally countless other threats. The most important lesson of the excesses arising from the 9/11 attacks should be this one: that the dangers of overreacting and succumbing to irrational fear are far, far greater than any other dangers posed by these type of events.

"There is but one thing of real value: to cultivate truth and justice and to live without anger in the midst of lying and unjust men"

Back in the first week of October 2001 I was part of a mock jury at Cleveland's second largest law firm. Part of the process was to fill out a short form describing yourself, demographic stats, and positive character attributes and character flaws...but the catch was you can be honest or make up anything you want, you can say you'r a serial killer if you want. It's just a tool for the lawyers to use when questioning specific jurors.

The mock trial was a patient suing a Dr. for medical malpractice. While going through random jurors they announced the Dr. was Pakistani. So it came my turn to be asked some questions, the lawyer states Don I see here when asked if you can be completely unbiased as a juror you answered "I would like to think so, but who can ever really say for sure depending on the circumstances". The lawyer follows up and asks can you be unbiased in this case against Dr. So & So. In front of a room full of about 60 lawyers and law students I said "I just don't know". The lawyer asked for further explanation, and I basically said "in the wake of our country's tragedy a few weeks ago (in which thousands of innocent people died) and the fact that it is the first thing you see on TV when you wake up and get home from work and the last thing you see when you go to bed, and the evidence strongly suggest terrorism with ties to Al Qaeda which is centered in a particular region of the world, no I am not sure I can look at this case without bias. I challenge anyone in this room to say they can and then actually do so. We're human, we have emotions, and to pretend emotions will not play a part in such a process is foolish".

The room was dead silent for about 10 seconds. The judge (an actual real judge) presiding continued to ask questions and if I were being honest (for the sake of the process of the mock trial), of which I was.

After the mock trial ended, when all the participants were enjoying some food and NA drinks, about 40 individuals including the judge and prominent partners in the firm came up to me and applauded the honesty, saying (to a man) that I said exactly what everyone in the room was thinking.

My point is, as I believe peeker's is to some degree, it is easy to talk the talk, but walking the walking in the wake of these events is a completely different story. Frankly I don't view someone as a bad person if they can't.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

2. Proceed in orderly fashion away from bomb sites. If you must, pick up your limbs and dead kids and calmly carry them to the nearest aid station.

I'm pretty sure that's verbatim from the manual they give troops on how to instruct civilians to act in the aftermath of a suicide bomber in a crowded market.

Fun fact: The best way to ID the actual suicide bomber is his head lands almost exactly where the blast occurred. The explosion pops the head off like a goddamn cork.

Don't be mad at Arabs because some unknown politicans or generals use the same tactics with drones against arab enemies on foreign countries.

Or maybe, and this might just be too out there, don't be mad at ALL Arabs. They fire the first missile at the "suspected" militants, and then when people come to aide (you know, like the fine people of Boston did), they fire another missile.

5. Try and act reasonably, as if you were in the UK or in Ohio watching this from afar and as a detached viewer.

Done. NEXT!

6. Don't bully people.

Agreed. Bullies are assholes. Fuck them.

7. Turn the other cheek and be decent.

Yes. Be decent to those who didn't do anything wrong. Don't treat them like pariahs because they talk different. Plus Jesus already said that shit like 2,000 years ago. But it did get him nailed to a plank of wood... something to consider I guess.

There is no justification for racism even if we understand why the racism happened. Doesn't matter what happened that day.

Can't kowtow to a couple flipped-out retards because they're afraid of people with darker tans than them. If anyone is irrationally worried about other people on the flight, kick THEM off. It's their issue, let them re-book with WASP Airlines.

Hikohadon wrote:There is no justification for racism even if we understand why the racism happened. Doesn't matter what happened that day.

Can't kowtow to a couple flipped-out retards because they're afraid of people with darker tans than them. If anyone is irrationally worried about other people on the flight, kick THEM off. It's their issue, let them re-book with WASP Airlines.

Hikohadon wrote:There is no justification for racism even if we understand why the racism happened. Doesn't matter what happened that day.

Can't kowtow to a couple flipped-out retards because they're afraid of people with darker tans than them. If anyone is irrationally worried about other people on the flight, kick THEM off. It's their issue, let them re-book with WASP Airlines.

You're not wrong in what you say Hiko, but in reality I'm not sure the decisions are that easy. I'm not going to re-read the initial scenario or to see if it has been addressed, but I imagine the airline has a tough decision to make in that case. B/C I'm sure they don't want an equal or possibly bigger problem in the skies if they in fact made a call that was displeasing to such a large number of people on the flight.

It's pretty much a no win situation for everyone.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

My point at this very second is that BP is a gutless fuck with clear and prevailing biases that he's afraid to actually stand up and account for, but that he's okay with alluding to the biases that affected others in regard to the airline situation.

He's also okay with alluding to said biases and prejudices with op/ed pieces and references to this government's drone program without mentioning once the proud EDL and their 25,000 members in his back yard and while also conveniently failing to note that his own government's drone program is quite impressive.

In short, I feel like some here are being criticized by a gutless, condescending, garden variety London-based pussy who prefers anonymously wailing about US politics and foreign policy when he's not decrying US citizens treatment of muslim/arabic persons, and who prefers to do so on a message board because it's a lot safer than him actually going outside and making his point with the 25,000 people on his own island who have been described as “a racist organisation whose main activity is street demonstrations against the Muslim community" and "an organisation of racist thugs with links to the BNP (British National Party)” which “has targeted Muslims and mosques, whipping up hatred, division and violence where it has been allowed to march".

Sounds like a worthy cause for a grounded, stable, bastion of morality to spend time on, teaching them the error of their ways.

Wonder why he posts stuff here instead. Seems like a lot of endergy wasted when he could confront these folks on the muslim issue and his own government on the drone practice.

Hikohadon wrote:There is no justification for racism even if we understand why the racism happened. Doesn't matter what happened that day.

Can't kowtow to a couple flipped-out retards because they're afraid of people with darker tans than them. If anyone is irrationally worried about other people on the flight, kick THEM off. It's their issue, let them re-book with WASP Airlines.

You're not wrong in what you say Hiko, but in reality I'm not sure the decisions are that easy. I'm not going to re-read the initial scenario or to see if it has been addressed, but I imagine the airline has a tough decision to make in that case. B/C I'm sure they don't want an equal or possibly bigger problem in the skies if they in fact made a call that was displeasing to such a large number of people on the flight.

It's pretty much a no win situation for everyone.

I get what you're saying and I'm not trying to come across as argumentative, but reality is that the passengers have to adhere to law no matter what happened on that day and no matter how they feel. If they don't, they're part of the problem.

If a number of passengers flipped out that some Arabs were on their flight 2 weeks ago, I doubt the airline would've removed them. Emotion can bring suppressed racism to the forefront and create a hostile situation for those Arab passengers, sure. Which is still no reason to succumb to it. The people with the problem - that could potentially cause a problem - are the ones that should be addressed, not the peaceful passengers with the nice tans.

ESPECIALLY when there's a real good chance that those bombs were planted by a white guy.

Hikohadon wrote:There is no justification for racism even if we understand why the racism happened. Doesn't matter what happened that day.

Can't kowtow to a couple flipped-out retards because they're afraid of people with darker tans than them. If anyone is irrationally worried about other people on the flight, kick THEM off. It's their issue, let them re-book with WASP Airlines.

Thanks Ghandi.

And I'm sure that's what the gate agent was thinking right before he/she was being surrounded by 125 ruddy-faced Boston/Chicago travelers who were about ready to make things ugly.

Because in those kinds of 'in the moment' situations it's never going to matter about what the environment is like and what happened that day. Just doing the right thing.

You see racism. I see someone that may have used their head to avert a riot. You have no more idea than I do.

It's great that you guys would have handled it all with such fairness. Because I'm pretty sure I was pissed off enough on 9/11 watching people jump to their deaths & fall with those buildings and watching runners de-legged and kids bleeding out Monday that I'm not sure I could have been strong enough to let those guys on the plane or smart enough to determine whether to keep them off and not risk their lives or possibly the lives of others with that call.

But if you guys tell me it was racist as opposed to the right decision made by someone who doesn't face those circumstances or anything close on a daily basis, who am I to determine they weren't a racist? As opposed to someone who was there, took inventory of the situation and made the best of two bad choices they were presented with?

Hikohadon wrote:There is no justification for racism even if we understand why the racism happened. Doesn't matter what happened that day.

Can't kowtow to a couple flipped-out retards because they're afraid of people with darker tans than them. If anyone is irrationally worried about other people on the flight, kick THEM off. It's their issue, let them re-book with WASP Airlines.

Thanks Ghandi.

And I'm sure that's what the gate agent was thinking right before he/she was being surrounded by 125 ruddy-faced Boston/Chicago travelers who were about ready to make things ugly.

Because in those kinds of 'in the moment' situations it's never going to matter about what the environment is like and what happened that day. Just doing the right thing.

You see racism. I see someone that may have used their head to avert a riot. You have no more idea than I do.

It's great that you guys would have handled it all with such fairness. Because I'm pretty sure I was pissed off enough on 9/11 watching people jump to their deaths fall with those buildings and watchers runners de-legged and kids bleeding out Monday that I'm not sure I could have been strong enough to let those guys on the plane or smart enough to determine to keep them off and not risk their lives or others with that call.

But if you guys tell me it was racist as opposed to the right decision made by someone who doesn't face those circumstances or anything close on a daily basis, who am I to determine they weren't a racist as opposed to someone who was there, took inventory of the situation and made the best of two bad choices they were prensted with?

I get that they're not faced with this problem every day. But they are trained for it. And it's not like they've never had to have passengers removed before. It's simple what you do - you call over the police and they say "Do we have a problem?"

"Wah wah wah!"

"I understand that you're upset, but these people had nothing to do with that. They are paid passengers just like any of you, and they have rights. If you choose not to remain on this flight, that's your decision. But if you choose to stay on this flight, then you need to just deal with their presence or face arrest and prosecution."

They might persist, so you arrest the troublemakers and the rest fall in line.

Just like you would last Thursday. Or a month ago. Or in two months.

And Puh-leeze with 125 passenger/riot nonsense. You know that this was a few loud mother fuckers that riled some others up. No way was it "every-other-person-on-the-plane". But if we want to persist with that "scenario", you keep calling cops until the situation is dealt with. Period.

You know what other situation was emotionally charged and actually did lead to a riot? James Meredith becoming the first black student at Ole Miss.

(CNN) -- [Breaking news update at 2:36 p.m. Wednesday]There is conflicting information as to whether someone has been arrested in connection with the Boston Marathon bombings. A federal law enforcement source told CNN's Fran Townsend that someone was arrested. But later, two senior administration officials and another federal official told Townsend that there had been a misunderstanding among officials and that no one has been arrested.

Peek, you keep alluding to 125 passengers. As if every person on that flight rose up as one to declare that it was too dangerous to fly with those Arab fellows. Admitting that neither of us know what actually happened, and mob mentality is a real possibility. Don't you think it's just as likely, if not more likely that the problem was caused by a small handful of passangers?

Edit: I see Hiko already cover that ground

Last edited by motherscratcher on Wed Apr 17, 2013 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

So you're going to call over the Boston PD? The department that's now watching buildings explode, people cut in half on their most famous street (or one of em),having 9/11 flashbacks and wondering wtf is happening right this second to their city, etc and they're going to make that call?

Know why some of those passengers, airline employees and probably the cops may have associated arabic speaking, arabic-looking people with buldings exploding and planes and airports on Monday?

OK. Anyway, good luck. At that point they're looking to avert disaster. They're looking to make sure nothing worse happens. They're looking at it with the same biases that BP has and that you have and that I have.

I agree it shouldn't work that way. I agree in an ideal world no one would give a fuck about race, creed, color, language.

And if you don't believe that the circumstances and the emotion and the scene developing around them didn't affect (or shouldn't affect) the decisons made on any number of levels Monday, well, I'd love to live in your world. Make that world exist, send me a Facebook invite and I'm in.

In that world I'd like to own a butt load of Travel Center/Gas Station/Truck Stop places where people can stop, get a coffee, a corn dog and a shower.

All people. All races, religions, etc.

Except muslims of course. I don't my Travel Centers being blown up. And no Italians or Irish either. Filthy, boozing thieves is what those guys are.

Hikohadon wrote:I get that they're not faced with this problem every day. But they are trained for it. And it's not like they've never had to have passengers removed before. It's simple what you do - you call over the police and they say "Do we have a problem?"

"Wah wah wah!"

"I understand that you're upset, but these people had nothing to do with that. They are paid passengers just like any of you, and they have rights. If you choose not to remain on this flight, that's your decision. But if you choose to stay on this flight, then you need to just deal with their presence or face arrest and prosecution."

They might persist, so you arrest the troublemakers and the rest fall in line.

Just like you would last Thursday. Or a month ago. Or in two months.

And Puh-leeze with 125 passenger/riot nonsense. You know that this was a few load mother fuckers that riled some others up. No way was it "every-other-person-on-the-plane". But if we want to persist with that "scenario", you keep calling cops until the situation is dealt with. Period.

You know what other situation was emotionally charged and actually did lead to a riot? James Meredith becoming the first black student at Ole Miss.

motherscratcher wrote:Peek, you keep alluding to 125 passengers. As if every person on that flight rose up as one to declare that it was too dangerous to fly with those Arab fellows. Admitting that neither of us know what actually happened, and mob mentality is a real possibility. Don't you think it's just as likely, if not more likely that the problem was caused by a small handful of passangers?

Probably. That's typically how that shit starts, right?It's also typically how it gets escalated into something bigger.

And again, it's so dependent on the facts that we don't know about. If I'm the one making the call and I honestly believe it's even 5 passengers only, but that those five could literally do harm to the two or cause an in-flight fiasco even if and after I have the police intervene on the ground, then maybe me making other arrangements for the two isn't racist and it's the best solution to the issue.

That's all. We see this happen and we scream 'racism', 'discrimination', whatever, right? That may be the underlying issue. But the person(s) making the call to re-route the two people may be making a brilliant call and doing so specifically because they're NOT racist and they fear for the safety and well-being of those two people and the innocent others on the flight.

That's what I'm saying.

Not saying that's how it was. Maybe the gate agent or pilot is the world's biggest racist and anti-arab.

I'm saying we don't know just based on the bullshit produced by bloggers and news outlets.

5 airport cops come in, use some harsh language, maybe arrest someone, game over. Most passengers will stop pushing once they realize that there will be consequences.

In the end, here's the rub: We both agree that this won't be the last time this happens and may become more frequent. We as a nation cannot lose our collective shit every time it does. Showing order and respect for rule of law in the face of crisis is EXACTLY what we want. Nothing demonstrates a strong country more than keeping our fucking heads and not heading down to the local square so we can burn Saudi flags and act like the fucking retards in late 70's Iran, no matter how we feel.

Unfortunately, the sooner we learn to deal with this shit, the better. And that starts with not letting paranoid douchebags bully flight crews into throwing innocent people off planes just because they like Allah.

And if you don't believe that the circumstances and the emotion and the scene developing around them didn't affect (or shouldn't affect) the decisons made on any number of levels Monday, well, I'd love to live in your world.

Of course it does. That doesn't make it right and doesn't mean we should allow it to happen.

Last edited by Hikohadon on Wed Apr 17, 2013 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

(CNN) -- [Breaking news update at 2:36 p.m. Wednesday]There is conflicting information as to whether someone has been arrested in connection with the Boston Marathon bombings. A federal law enforcement source told CNN's Fran Townsend that someone was arrested. But later, two senior administration officials and another federal official told Townsend that there had been a misunderstanding among officials and that no one has been arrested.

Has there been any statement from the passangers that were moved? I'm sure thy aren't thrilled about what happened, but I wonder if they fault the airline for the decision, or if they agree that under the circumstances they would possibly have been in danger.

motherscratcher wrote:Peek, you keep alluding to 125 passengers. As if every person on that flight rose up as one to declare that it was too dangerous to fly with those Arab fellows. Admitting that neither of us know what actually happened, and mob mentality is a real possibility. Don't you think it's just as likely, if not more likely that the problem was caused by a small handful of passangers?

Probably. That's typically how that shit starts, right?It's also typically how it gets escalated into something bigger.

And again, it's so dependent on the facts that we don't know about. If I'm the one making the call and I honestly believe it's even 5 passengers only, but that those five could literally do harm to the two or cause an in-flight fiasco even if and after I have the police intervene on the ground, then maybe me making other arrangements for the two isn't racist and it's the best solution to the issue.

That's all. We see this happen and we scream 'racism', 'discrimination', whatever, right? That may be the underlying issue. But the person(s) making the call to re-route the two people may be making a brilliant call and doing so specifically because they're NOT racist and they fear for the safety and well-being of those two people and the innocent others on the flight.

BTW - I'm not calling the people that made the decision to remove them from the flight racist, only the people that made it a big issue. The people that had the power to remove them from the flight may have done so for a number of reasons we don't know. My only beef with them is that they removed the wrong people.

Let's hope we all learn to keep our heads in the midst of chaos and make the perfect decision every time we are forced to.

That would be excellent.

In absence of that, I hope we make one based on sound information and rational thought. So that at the very worst, nothing stupid in addition to what originally caused the chaos occurs.

Last choice is to make one out of hatred/bias/racism or allow anyone suffering from same to make the decision for them.

But good isn't the enemy of perfect. And you don't know what went down or how you'd handle it until you're in the same shit.

Hikohadon wrote:

So you're going to call over the Boston PD?

You say that like the airport's not already crawling with cops.

5 airport cops come in, use some harsh language, maybe arrest someone, game over. Most passengers will stop pushing once they realize that there will be consequences.

In the end, here's the rub: We both agree that this won't be the last time this happens and may become more frequent. We as a nation cannot lose our collective shit every time it does. Showing order and respect for rule of law in the face of crisis is EXACTLY what we want. Nothing demonstrates a strong country more than keeping our fucking heads and not heading down to the local square so we can burn Saudi flags and act like the fucking retards in late 70's Iran, no matter how we feel.

Unfortunately, the sooner we learn to deal with this shit, the better. And that starts with not letting paranoid douchebags bully flight crews into throwing innocent people off planes just because they like Allah.

And if you don't believe that the circumstances and the emotion and the scene developing around them didn't affect (or shouldn't affect) the decisons made on any number of levels Monday, well, I'd love to live in your world.

Of course it does. That doesn't make it right and doesn't mean we should allow it to happen.

Hikohadon wrote:BTW - I'm not calling the people that made the decision to remove them from the flight racist, only the people that made it a big issue. The people that had the power to remove them from the flight may have done so for a number of reasons we don't know. My only beef with them is that they removed the wrong people.

In a vacuum? Yes. Probably. But again, in reality and in real time? Don't know. If the greater good was served by doing what they did, do it again if you have to down the road.

If you made that call out of bias/racism or because you were influenced by someone else's bias/racism then shame on you. Then we have issues with the airline and its personnel and probably its culture in general.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Aid tents for dehydration and other runners' injuries, not people having limbs blown off.

Thats just stupid and indicative of your lack of awareness of whats in that tent and what it could be used for...

First of all, strecthers, tables and wheelchairs...more importantly, simple bandages and such that could be used in a variety of ways, not to mention IV's so get your head out of your ass and think cuz when I make you look stupid, you look realy really stupid

Peeks, I agree with you 100% and good job at calling out that Limey, Pomy fuck.

As an American who has lived a good portion of my adult life outside of the US I deal with real American steroetypes on a daily basis. I fully understand that the cause of this has less to do with the locals in the places that I have lived and a lot more to do with the Americans and their behaivors which preceeded me.

I realize as a foreigner in these places that I will be subject to stereotypes, some additional scrutiny and secondary priority for services versus the locals. It is the same everywhere and it goes with the territory.

I don't blame the American's on the Boston/Chicago flight for speaking-out if those "foreigners" were acting unusually and switched to speaking a foreign language so that they could not be understood.

The right of hundreds of innocent people on the plane to live exceeds the rights of those 2 foreigners to fly on that particular flight. The imposition "cost" placed on those 2 is less than the potential cost if they turned out to be terrorists.

If those two foreigners, the Pomy fuck and others are mad and pissed off about their treatment they should be mad at the similar foreigners and their behavoris that caused the stereotype and associated suspisions in the first place.

YahooFanChicago wrote:I don't blame the American's on the Boston/Chicago flight for speaking-out if those "foreigners" were acting unusually and switched to speaking a foreign language so that they could not be understood.

Who said anything about them acting unusually? And talking in a foreign language "so that they could not be understood"?